Case Summary (A.C. No. 500)
Facts of the Case
On April 5, 1960, Respondent Jaime S. Ner was presented with a deed of sale for notarization by his officemate, Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr. The acknowledgment clause falsely claimed that both the vendor and vendor’s representative appeared in person before him. The vendor, Abaya, did appear, but the vendee, Eduardo I. Reyes, did not, nor did anyone else as a witness. Abaya assured Ner that he would bring the vendee for proper acknowledgment the next day. However, later that day, Abaya claimed that his car, subject to the sale, had been stolen along with the notarized deed and related documents.
Subsequent Developments
Despite the theft, Reyes, allegedly utilizing the stolen documents, procured a new certificate of registration for the vehicle and subsequently sold it to Petitioner Ramirez, who claims to have purchased the car in good faith. During a criminal trial for qualified theft concerning the vehicle, the respondent admitted to notarizing the deed, acknowledging the vendee's absence during the notarization.
Respondent's Defense
Respondent Ner contended that the notarization was incomplete because the vendee did not sign in his presence. He argued that this situation absolved him from wrongdoing regarding the violation of his professional oath, asserting that just affixing his signature and seal did not equate to proper notarization.
Legal Analysis
The court established that the act of notarizing a document misrepresenting the presence of both parties serves as a breach of the responsibilities held by notaries public. A notarial document, once executed, is presumed to be valid and is entitled to full faith and credit. The integrity of the notarial profession requires adherence to legal formalities to maintain public confidence. Allowing the unauthorized notarization facilitates potential fraud, thus undermining the legal system.
Conclusion
While the respondent's actions showed a l
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 500)
Case Overview
- This case involves disbarment proceedings against Atty. Jaime S. Ner, a member of the Philippine Bar.
- The charges stem from allegations of violating his oath as a lawyer and as a notary public.
- Specifically, he was accused of notarizing a deed of sale for a motor vehicle with a false acknowledgment clause.
Factual Background
- On April 5, 1960, Atty. Gavino Abaya, Jr., a friend and officemate of the respondent, presented a deed of sale for notarization.
- The acknowledgment clause claimed that both the vendor (Abaya) and the vendee (Eduardo I. Reyes) appeared before Atty. Ner.
- In reality, only the vendor and a witness were present; the vendee did not appear to sign the document.
- Abaya assured Ner that he would bring the vendee to his office the following day to complete the notarization.
- Later that day, Abaya informed Ner that the car had been stolen, along with the notarized deed and the certificate of registration.
Impact of Notarization
- Despite the absence of the vendee during notarization, the deed was used to obtain a new certificate of registration for the vehicle in Reyes's name.
- Reyes subsequently sold the stolen vehicle to petitioner Tahimik Ramirez, who claimed to have purchased